Survey data discussion split from Male normalisation of sexual violence thread

[Rex Piat]

I've moved a few more posts over to this thread as I think it meant the other thread was a bit confusing. There was a discussion on the dangers of choking which I've left over there as I think they segued back into the topic as a whole. Also renamed this thread too.

You see it a lot in newspapers reports of "shock" survey results where Option A: Vaguely defined thing which could be interpreted as either something tediously humdrum and everyday or possibly something mildly scandalous/worrying which gets 45% response is lumped in with Option B: Something clearly worrying but thankfully uncommon on 4% and Option C: Something absolutely terrible but which is almost unheard of on <1% to produce the desired headline "50% of people have experienced Option C-type things!!!!"


*I'm not saying that's what happened here.

Some should - given that is precisely what has happened, or put more accurately "has been connived at by the BBC".
https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/bbc- ... mber-2019/
full data = https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content ... 119cdh.pdf

Is slapping a powerful blow to the face, or a passing contact with minimal power delivered to a buttock ? Was the blow delivered in rage, or with expressed dominance, or as a passing silliness on the way to a soft embrace ? Does hair pulling involve detaching measurable numbers of hairs at the root, or just the vaguest restraint by briefly holding a pony tail, or is it the result of clumsiness by leaning on flowing tresses ? What constitutes spitting ? Any use of saliva as a lubricant, intentional or deliberate dribbling, spitballing or only a violent expulsion of saliva that mirrors highly aggressive and degrading behaviour in a public context ? Is gagging the result of a deliberate action or of clumsiness ? Is it the gentle placing of hand to stifle a cry of pleasure or done with the intention to inhibit breathing ?

Without explicit definition the results of those questions are meaningless, yet thrown in with the possibilities of innocent harm free interactions is the unambiguously dangerous practice of throat constriction which inevitably colours how the results are read in their entirety.

At best the survey shows the subjective and unexaminable experience of some individuals whose only commonality is that they identify as female and of a certain age, beyond that it tells us nothing about human sexuality, certainly nothing about how sexuality in the UK may be changing.

[nefibach]

You see it a lot in newspapers reports of "shock" survey results where Option A: Vaguely defined thing which could be interpreted as either something tediously humdrum and everyday or possibly something mildly scandalous/worrying which gets 45% response is lumped in with Option B: Something clearly worrying but thankfully uncommon on 4% and Option C: Something absolutely terrible but which is almost unheard of on <1% to produce the desired headline "50% of people have experienced Option C-type things!!!!"


*I'm not saying that's what happened here.

Some should - given that is precisely what has happened, or put more accurately "has been connived at by the BBC".
https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/bbc- ... mber-2019/
full data = https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content ... 119cdh.pdf

Is slapping a powerful blow to the face, or a passing contact with minimal power delivered to a buttock ? Was the blow delivered in rage, or with expressed dominance, or as a passing silliness on the way to a soft embrace ? Does hair pulling involve detaching measurable numbers of hairs at the root, or just the vaguest restraint by briefly holding a pony tail, or is it the result of clumsiness by leaning on flowing tresses ? What constitutes spitting ? Any use of saliva as a lubricant, intentional or deliberate dribbling, spitballing or only a violent expulsion of saliva that mirrors highly aggressive and degrading behaviour in a public context ? Is gagging the result of a deliberate action or of clumsiness ? Is it the gentle placing of hand to stifle a cry of pleasure or done with the intention to inhibit breathing ?

Without explicit definition the results of those questions are meaningless, yet thrown in with the possibilities of innocent harm free interactions is the unambiguously dangerous practice of throat constriction which inevitably colours how the results are read in their entirety.

At best the survey shows the subjective and unexaminable experience of some individuals whose only commonality is that they identify as female and of a certain age, beyond that it tells us nothing about human sexuality, certainly nothing about how sexuality in the UK may be changing.

None of that matters. What matters is how much of the time those actions were unwanted. It doesn't matter if a slap leaves a bruise or not if any slap is unwanted. This is about men doing things to women during sex that women don't want, it's not about the prevalence of nibbling v biting and drawing blood.

[Tessa K]

You see it a lot in newspapers reports of "shock" survey results where Option A: Vaguely defined thing which could be interpreted as either something tediously humdrum and everyday or possibly something mildly scandalous/worrying which gets 45% response is lumped in with Option B: Something clearly worrying but thankfully uncommon on 4% and Option C: Something absolutely terrible but which is almost unheard of on <1% to produce the desired headline "50% of people have experienced Option C-type things!!!!"


*I'm not saying that's what happened here.

Some should - given that is precisely what has happened, or put more accurately "has been connived at by the BBC".
https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/bbc- ... mber-2019/
full data = https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content ... 119cdh.pdf

Is slapping a powerful blow to the face, or a passing contact with minimal power delivered to a buttock ? Was the blow delivered in rage, or with expressed dominance, or as a passing silliness on the way to a soft embrace ? Does hair pulling involve detaching measurable numbers of hairs at the root, or just the vaguest restraint by briefly holding a pony tail, or is it the result of clumsiness by leaning on flowing tresses ? What constitutes spitting ? Any use of saliva as a lubricant, intentional or deliberate dribbling, spitballing or only a violent expulsion of saliva that mirrors highly aggressive and degrading behaviour in a public context ? Is gagging the result of a deliberate action or of clumsiness ? Is it the gentle placing of hand to stifle a cry of pleasure or done with the intention to inhibit breathing ?

Without explicit definition the results of those questions are meaningless, yet thrown in with the possibilities of innocent harm free interactions is the unambiguously dangerous practice of throat constriction which inevitably colours how the results are read in their entirety.

At best the survey shows the subjective and unexaminable experience of some individuals whose only commonality is that they identify as female and of a certain age, beyond that it tells us nothing about human sexuality, certainly nothing about how sexuality in the UK may be changing.

None of that matters. What matters is how much of the time those actions were unwanted. It doesn't matter if a slap leaves a bruise or not if any slap is unwanted. This is about men doing things to women during sex that women don't want, it's not about the prevalence of nibbling v biting and drawing blood.

That's exactly what I was going to say. If there's no consent, don't do it, however 'mild' you think it is. No means no and stop means stop - unless there has been a very specific conversation to the contrary. It doesn't turn sex into a meeting with minutes and an agenda, it's just a conversation that can be part of the intimacy and foreplay.

the possibilities of innocent harm free interactions

- they're only harm free if they're consenting. Always.

[JellyandJackson]

Exactly what nefi and Tessa said.
The whole thing about kink (I understand, I’m hardly an expert) is that it’s negotiated and limits set. If you’re on the sub side, nothing “happens to you by accident”. If you put someone’s safety or life in danger, you’re doing it wrong. You’re incompetent.

I’m a short, slimmish female. Monogamous with husband, but if I were to have sex with anyone else, they would pretty much by definition be quite a bit bigger and stronger than me. The thought of being choked “by accident” terrifies me. This is nothing about sex, it’s about power and violence, and frankly it can f.ck right off.

[Tessa K]

Exactly what nefi and Tessa said.
The whole thing about kink (I understand, I’m hardly an expert) is that it’s negotiated and limits set. If you’re on the sub side, nothing “happens to you by accident”. If you put someone’s safety or life in danger, you’re doing it wrong. You’re incompetent.

I’m a short, slimmish female. Monogamous with husband, but if I were to have sex with anyone else, they would pretty much by definition be quite a bit bigger and stronger than me. The thought of being choked “by accident” terrifies me. This is nothing about sex, it’s about power and violence, and frankly it can f.ck right off.

Of course, the force behind a blow or stranglehold is partly determined by the heft behind it. But it's not about size if there's the element of surprise when you're in a relaxed, trusting situation; it's even harder to stop it quickly then.

Hopefully the men who do this because they think it's a 'manly' thing to do will see these news stories and either not do it or learn how to do it properly and consensually. To see the flip side - no sex is worth going to prison for.

[Rex Piat]

You see it a lot in newspapers reports of "shock" survey results where Option A: Vaguely defined thing which could be interpreted as either something tediously humdrum and everyday or possibly something mildly scandalous/worrying which gets 45% response is lumped in with Option B: Something clearly worrying but thankfully uncommon on 4% and Option C: Something absolutely terrible but which is almost unheard of on <1% to produce the desired headline "50% of people have experienced Option C-type things!!!!"


*I'm not saying that's what happened here.

Some should - given that is precisely what has happened, or put more accurately "has been connived at by the BBC".
https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/bbc- ... mber-2019/
full data = https://www.comresglobal.com/wp-content ... 119cdh.pdf

Is slapping a powerful blow to the face, or a passing contact with minimal power delivered to a buttock ? Was the blow delivered in rage, or with expressed dominance, or as a passing silliness on the way to a soft embrace ? Does hair pulling involve detaching measurable numbers of hairs at the root, or just the vaguest restraint by briefly holding a pony tail, or is it the result of clumsiness by leaning on flowing tresses ? What constitutes spitting ? Any use of saliva as a lubricant, intentional or deliberate dribbling, spitballing or only a violent expulsion of saliva that mirrors highly aggressive and degrading behaviour in a public context ? Is gagging the result of a deliberate action or of clumsiness ? Is it the gentle placing of hand to stifle a cry of pleasure or done with the intention to inhibit breathing ?

Without explicit definition the results of those questions are meaningless, yet thrown in with the possibilities of innocent harm free interactions is the unambiguously dangerous practice of throat constriction which inevitably colours how the results are read in their entirety.

At best the survey shows the subjective and unexaminable experience of some individuals whose only commonality is that they identify as female and of a certain age, beyond that it tells us nothing about human sexuality, certainly nothing about how sexuality in the UK may be changing.

None of that matters. What matters is how much of the time those actions were unwanted. It doesn't matter if a slap leaves a bruise or not if any slap is unwanted. This is about men doing things to women during sex that women don't want, it's not about the prevalence of nibbling v biting and drawing blood.

For most people sex isn't a formal negotiation about the minutiae of what is and isn't acceptable at any one time, there can be all sorts of discomforts, both physical and cognitive, that a partner (all genders/all gender combinations) accepts because it's all part of the frolic/love/passion. Of course it is likely to be beneficial that as a relationship develops partners discuss their likes and dislikes as those likes and dislikes change over time but the survey doesn't tell us anything about the nature of the relationships involved, or how individual's changing tastes alter with experience, or how clumsiness and lack of experience both in general or with a specific partner, affect what it is that BBC article claims. Ideally neither partner (assuming a couple) should have their experience of sex marred by the avoidable behaviour of the other but sex is often in some part uncomfortable and even confusing because of the behaviour/actions of the other person. One can't make sense of this without clear and detailed explanations of complex experiences using explicit terminology from both( all) participants.

The survey is presented to show how horrible men do horrible things to powerless women but it doesn't provide the data to make such a determination. To even begin to understand we would need vastly more information which would have to include the male experience, and experience in male/male and female/female relationships. There may be a huge cultural problem in terms of inherent violence by men in heterosexual relationships but this survey doesn't tell us anything about that - it just tell us that a proportion of 2000 younger women had sexual interactions with male partners that included experiences that ranged from the uncomfortable to the dangerous - it doesn't tell us anything about how the discomforts or dangers arose or about the chemistry between partners that led to those discomforts or dangers. And without that there isn't anything sensible one can say about origin or remedy of any of the discomforts or dangers.

[JellyandJackson]

Is sex often uncomfortable and confusing in part though? Sometimes, occasionally, maybe, but often?

I worry about the expectation for women (esp young and/or less confident women) that sex will be uncomfortable. Otherwise how to account for the availability of creams to anaesthetise pain after sex?

[mediocrity511]

There's a difference between a formal negotiation and asking "is this ok?". The latter taki g only seconds.

As a counterpoint the folk who are into full BDSM stuff do have pretty formal negotiations about what is ok and then practise aftercare afterwards. It seems like more BDSM acts are becoming popular but without the safety framework to keep everyone safe and happy.

[Woodchopper]

For most people sex isn't a formal negotiation about the minutiae of what is and isn't acceptable at any one time, there can be all sorts of discomforts, both physical and cognitive, that a partner (all genders/all gender combinations) accepts because it's all part of the frolic/love/passion. Of course it is likely to be beneficial that as a relationship develops partners discuss their likes and dislikes as those likes and dislikes change over time but the survey doesn't tell us anything about the nature of the relationships involved, or how individual's changing tastes alter with experience, or how clumsiness and lack of experience both in general or with a specific partner, affect what it is that BBC article claims. Ideally neither partner (assuming a couple) should have their experience of sex marred by the avoidable behaviour of the other but sex is often in some part uncomfortable and even confusing because of the behaviour/actions of the other person. One can't make sense of this without clear and detailed explanations of complex experiences using explicit terminology from both( all) participants.

This is complete rubbish. Non consensual slapping, choking, gagging or spitting are examples of Common Assault, a criminal offence. They don’t stop being examples of assault just because the perpetrator is having sex - quite the opposite. No one should do that, ever. That’s why it’s been a crime for centuries.

To compare an assault to other forms of discomfort (perhaps muscle cramps from over exertion) is staggeringly inept.

[Tessa K]

For most people sex isn't a formal negotiation about the minutiae of what is and isn't acceptable at any one time, there can be all sorts of discomforts, both physical and cognitive, that a partner (all genders/all gender combinations) accepts because it's all part of the frolic/love/passion. Of course it is likely to be beneficial that as a relationship develops partners discuss their likes and dislikes as those likes and dislikes change over time but the survey doesn't tell us anything about the nature of the relationships involved, or how individual's changing tastes alter with experience, or how clumsiness and lack of experience both in general or with a specific partner, affect what it is that BBC article claims. Ideally neither partner (assuming a couple) should have their experience of sex marred by the avoidable behaviour of the other but sex is often in some part uncomfortable and even confusing because of the behaviour/actions of the other person. One can't make sense of this without clear and detailed explanations of complex experiences using explicit terminology from both( all) participants.

This is complete rubbish. Non consensual slapping, choking, gagging or spitting are examples of Common Assault, a criminal offence. They don’t stop being examples of assault just because the perpetrator is having sex - quite the opposite. No one should do that, ever. That’s why it’s been a crime for centuries.

To compare an assault to other forms of discomfort (perhaps muscle cramps from over exertion) is staggeringly inept.

For sure. Choking someone is not clumsiness. Punching or slapping someone is not clumsiness. Yes, there needs to be more research into exactly what is going on but as a preliminary indicator of rising male violence against women during sex, it's more than enough to be taken seriously.

Believe the victims. Especially when there are this many of them. Don't make excuses for the men.

As a counterpoint the folk who are into full BDSM stuff do have pretty formal negotiations about what is ok and then practise aftercare afterwards. It seems like more BDSM acts are becoming popular but without the safety framework to keep everyone safe and happy.

And they learn how to do it properly.

[Woodchopper]

Also, choking is exceptionally dangerous. If as a result of pressure applied to the neck the blood flow to the brain is impaired then loss of consciousness occurs in 10 - 15 seconds; death within 3 - 5 minutes.

If the victim doesn’t die, they can still suffer brain damage.

That's alarmist. I've been choked often during sex, it's usually finger pressure on the vessels in the neck and gives a warm fuzzy feeling.
Choking someone violently is difficult to do and requires strength and practice.

10-15 seconds of sexual choking will not lead to lack of consciousness.

I agree.

However, the thread is about women who have been assaulted by men during sex. In that context, an assault by choking is far more dangerous than an assault by a slap etc.

[Rex Piat]

For most people sex isn't a formal negotiation about the minutiae of what is and isn't acceptable at any one time, there can be all sorts of discomforts, both physical and cognitive, that a partner (all genders/all gender combinations) accepts because it's all part of the frolic/love/passion. Of course it is likely to be beneficial that as a relationship develops partners discuss their likes and dislikes as those likes and dislikes change over time but the survey doesn't tell us anything about the nature of the relationships involved, or how individual's changing tastes alter with experience, or how clumsiness and lack of experience both in general or with a specific partner, affect what it is that BBC article claims. Ideally neither partner (assuming a couple) should have their experience of sex marred by the avoidable behaviour of the other but sex is often in some part uncomfortable and even confusing because of the behaviour/actions of the other person. One can't make sense of this without clear and detailed explanations of complex experiences using explicit terminology from both( all) participants.

This is complete rubbish. Non consensual slapping, choking, gagging or spitting are examples of Common Assault, a criminal offence. They don’t stop being examples of assault just because the perpetrator is having sex - quite the opposite. No one should do that, ever. That’s why it’s been a crime for centuries.

To compare an assault to other forms of discomfort (perhaps muscle cramps from over exertion) is staggeringly inept.

The survey on which this thread is predicated creates the ambiguity. The responses to questions 1,2, 4 and 5 are sought without reference to any definition of what they constitute, with the notable exception of question 3 (choking) which was closely defined, there are no means to identify what was in the minds of the responders when they replied, . The survey does not even include specification of whether the individual acts were concented to, only that intercourse was consensual. Question 2. aggregates the activities for classification of wanted and unwanted (therefore strictly consensual/non consensual) but this allows no way to distinguish between the varied acts, and of course no way to know what the responders were in fact responding to.

In the absence of far greater detail there is no way to tie any of the responses (except those for non consensual action of choking, but which the survey does not dis-aggregate) to legal definitions of assault, all could fall within the notion given in the sentencing guild line link of 'contact sport', that is in English law, these were minor discomforts that were part of the consented activity. To be clear it is not my argument that is the case, merely that the nature of the survey doesn't allow the sports analogy not to apply.

None of this is to say that the ground covered by the survey doesn't include matters of legal, moral, cultural or philosophical concern, rather it is that this particular survey doesn't provide anything from which to extrapolate, and thus doesn't support the title of the thread and some of the discussion that followed. My personal view is that the BBC procured a manipulative result to create media froth that actually serves no one but the programme executives. However given the responses to question 3. there may well be good reason to think that a public sexual health initiative in respective of choking as an element of sex play is somewhat overdue.

[Tessa K]

In the absence of far greater detail there is no way to tie any of the responses (except those for non consensual action of choking, but which the survey does not dis-aggregate) to legal definitions of assault, all could fall within the notion given in the sentencing guild line link of 'contact sport', that is in English law, these were minor discomforts that were part of the consented activity. To be clear it is not my argument that is the case, merely that the nature of the survey doesn't allow the sports analogy not to apply.

Except that in sport it is rare that men and women compete and where they do, strength is not a component. Whereas in hetero sex, the man is always stronger and it isn't a competition. Sport has clearly defined rules, this kind of sex doesn't (which is part of the problem). Also, there are not (normally) spectators. I agree that a certain amount of rough and tumble may be expected in sex as in sport but this goes way beyond that so it's not a useful comparison. There is also the element of male entitlement and privilege, thinking it is fine to abuse women and do them harm (even if death or serious injury isn't the intention).

None of this is to say that the ground covered by the survey doesn't include matters of legal, moral, cultural or philosophical concern, rather it is that this particular survey doesn't provide anything from which to extrapolate, and thus doesn't support the title of the thread and some of the discussion that followed. My personal view is that the BBC procured a manipulative result to create media froth that actually serves no one but the programme executives. However given the responses to question 3. there may well be good reason to think that a public sexual health initiative in respective of choking as an element of sex play is somewhat overdue.

You're right that the survey could be a lot more detailed and specific but if women think there is a problem, there is a problem. It's right that, as skeptics, we point out flaws in research but dismissing, trivialising or explaining away women's experience because of lack of stats is all too familiar (not pointing any fingers but this has happened historically with rape, abuse of women and children both sexual and other, domestic violence etc etc)

An acceptable place to settle might be that there is a problem, that more research is needed and this survey has highlighted an important issue without providing comprehensive data.

[Bird on a Fire]

The responses to questions 1,2, 4 and 5 are sought without reference to any definition of what they constitute, with the notable exception of question 3 (choking) which was closely defined, there are no means to identify what was in the minds of the responders when they replied, .

Untrue. For example, Question 1:

Which of the following have you, or have you not, experienced during consensual sexual intercourse?
Slapping where a partner strikes you with open hand on any part of body
Choking where a partner places their hands around your neck and applies pressure
Gagging where your mouth or airway is blocked or partially blocked with a body part or item
Spitting where a partner spits on you during sexual intercourse
Hair-pulling where a partner pulls your hair during sexual intercourse
Biting where a partner bites your skin during sexual intercourse

Those look a lot like definitions to me, and to be honest I expect most women know what common words like 'biting', 'spitting' and 'hair-pulling' are anyway. It's not like they asked "have you ever experienced antidisestablishmentarianism during a shag?"

The subsequent questions are very clearly referring to occasions where the respondents have experienced the acts already defined, as the respondents were filtered by those responding in the positive to question 1.

The survey does not even include specification of whether the individual acts were concented to, only that intercourse was consensual. Question 2. aggregates the activities for classification of wanted and unwanted (therefore strictly consensual/non consensual) but this allows no way to distinguish between the varied acts, and of course no way to know what the responders were in fact responding to.

The survey establishes the number of women who have experienced unwanted violent acts during otherwise-consensual sexual intercourse. I don't see why we'd particularly need greater granularity as to what type of unwanted violent act they've experienced before we accept there is a problem.

In the absence of far greater detail there is no way to tie any of the responses (except those for non consensual action of choking, but which the survey does not dis-aggregate) to legal definitions of assault,

Which of non-consensual slapping, choking, gagging, spitting, hair-pulling and biting wouldn't fall under the definition of assault?

Does an act need to fall under the definition of assault in order for it to be an unwelcome and problematic occurrence during sex?

all could fall within the notion given in the sentencing guild line link of 'contact sport', that is in English law, these were minor discomforts that were part of the consented activity. To be clear it is not my argument that is the case, merely that the nature of the survey doesn't allow the sports analogy not to apply.

Except that biting and choking and so on aren't part of consensual sex if you don't consent to them. I think we all know what sex is, and slapping people isn't a normal part of it, and no reasonable person would consider it to be so.

None of this is to say that the ground covered by the survey doesn't include matters of legal, moral, cultural or philosophical concern, rather it is that this particular survey doesn't provide anything from which to extrapolate, and thus doesn't support the title of the thread and some of the discussion that followed. My personal view is that the BBC procured a manipulative result to create media froth that actually serves no one but the programme executives. However given the responses to question 3. there may well be good reason to think that a public sexual health initiative in respective of choking as an element of sex play is somewhat overdue.

On the contrary it very clearly establishes the scope of the problem. Your ideas for follow-up research into the relative frequency of non-consensual slapping vs biting vs choking vs hair-pulling and so on might be very interesting, but they are hardly essential to see what's going on here.

Quit your waffly nitpicking, please.

[Tessa K]

What Bird said.

[username]

It is right that there's a definitions issue; if someone playfully spanks my bum during consensual sex it's not a violent act, even if I don't want it. If someone moves unexpectedly during oral sex would that count as a gagging or choking experience? Personally I'd say yes, but it'd include accidents, which would probably skew the poll with false positives.

I'd also think aggregating a 'some of the time they were unwanted' solely with the 'acts were unwanted' is just as valid as aggregating it with 'acts were wanted'. If the same thing is twice countable like that then it's probably not a very well structured question. Imagine a vaccine questionnaire with that question...

After Vaccination did you have an adverse reaction:

Every time 10%
Most of the time 14%
Some of the time 29%
None of the times 44%
Prefer not to say 3%

Net Result: 53% Adverse reaction.

The more that results are aggregated the higher the likelihood of building big numbers but accuracy suffers in proportion.

eta Incidentally I've just realized remembered that one of Criado Perez's issues in her book was to do with failure to disaggregate data which end up giving misleading or false results. Hmmm.

[username]

Probably worth noting just in passing that unwanted contact is not always assault, strictly speaking, but no need to dwell on it I guess.

[JQH]

I'd also think aggregating a 'some of the time they were unwanted' solely with the 'acts were unwanted' is just as valid as aggregating it with 'acts were wanted'. If the same thing is twice countable like that then it's probably not a very well structured question.

Unless I'm misreading it's not saying "some of the tine the acts were unwanted" it's saying "some of the time unwanted acts happened". In which case it seams reasonable to aggregate it with "most of the time" and "all of the time" to determine what fraction of women had experienced unwanted acts against their person.

[username]

I'd also think aggregating a 'some of the time they were unwanted' solely with the 'acts were unwanted' is just as valid as aggregating it with 'acts were wanted'. If the same thing is twice countable like that then it's probably not a very well structured question.

Unless I'm misreading it's not saying "some of the tine the acts were unwanted" it's saying "some of the time unwanted acts happened". In which case it seams reasonable to aggregate it with "most of the time" and "all of the time" to determine what fraction of women had experienced unwanted acts against their person.

"Thinking specifically of the occasions you have experienced slapping, choking, gagging or spitting during consensual sexual intercourse, how frequently would you say that these acts were unwanted?"

My reading of the question differs from yours. So now we have two interpretations; how many others are there?

It appears to me to be designed to get the biggest aggregate number; the question is vague (as are some others- does pressure mean persuasion,negotiation or intimidation? Or even, dare I say it,quid pro quo*? I really don't know).

All and most are definable,some covers a range from once to half of the time. Little Waster made this general point on page one, and Tom P also mentioned disaggregating the questions, I think.
~
Has anyone written a "Bad Surveys" type book?

*Not that unusual in the bedroom as I understand it.

[discovolante]

I'd like to remind people of Rule 12, which you've of course all read, which makes it clear that that type of dismissal isn't allowed when it comes to discussions of this nature, and nor is quibbling over the quality of evidence and neglecting the general discussion of the overall narrative.

[Woodchopper]

For most people sex isn't a formal negotiation about the minutiae of what is and isn't acceptable at any one time, there can be all sorts of discomforts, both physical and cognitive, that a partner (all genders/all gender combinations) accepts because it's all part of the frolic/love/passion. Of course it is likely to be beneficial that as a relationship develops partners discuss their likes and dislikes as those likes and dislikes change over time but the survey doesn't tell us anything about the nature of the relationships involved, or how individual's changing tastes alter with experience, or how clumsiness and lack of experience both in general or with a specific partner, affect what it is that BBC article claims. Ideally neither partner (assuming a couple) should have their experience of sex marred by the avoidable behaviour of the other but sex is often in some part uncomfortable and even confusing because of the behaviour/actions of the other person. One can't make sense of this without clear and detailed explanations of complex experiences using explicit terminology from both( all) participants.

This is complete rubbish. Non consensual slapping, choking, gagging or spitting are examples of Common Assault, a criminal offence. They don’t stop being examples of assault just because the perpetrator is having sex - quite the opposite. No one should do that, ever. That’s why it’s been a crime for centuries.

To compare an assault to other forms of discomfort (perhaps muscle cramps from over exertion) is staggeringly inept.

The survey on which this thread is predicated creates the ambiguity. The responses to questions 1,2, 4 and 5 are sought without reference to any definition of what they constitute, with the notable exception of question 3 (choking) which was closely defined, there are no means to identify what was in the minds of the responders when they replied, .

That's incorrect, see Bird on a Fire's post. In the survey the actions were defined (eg Gagging where your mouth or airway is blocked or partially blocked with a body part or item).

The survey does not even include specification of whether the individual acts were concented to, only that intercourse was consensual.

See also Bird on a Fire's post regarding unwanted acts.

Question 2. aggregates the activities for classification of wanted and unwanted (therefore strictly consensual/non consensual) but this allows no way to distinguish between the varied acts, and of course no way to know what the responders were in fact responding to.

See the other responses.

In the absence of far greater detail there is no way to tie any of the responses (except those for non consensual action of choking, but which the survey does not dis-aggregate) to legal definitions of assault, all could fall within the notion given in the sentencing guild line link of 'contact sport',

No, they couldn't fall under the exception of a contact sport. That applies to sports like football or rugby which have well defined rules. A person who plays football can be assumed to have consented to a certain amount of shoving etc, because they know in advance what is allowed.

that is in English law, these were minor discomforts that were part of the consented activity.

First, slapping, spitting, biting, hair pulling, gagging and choking are all covered by common assault. For example, see these notes by a solicitor:

no injury needs to have been sustained. Common examples are spitting, pushing or slapping.

Second, "were part of the consented activity" would only apply if the woman knew in advance that sex would usually involve spiting, gagging etc, and that the woman consented to them (with the two principles of consent being that it is positive and genuine).[/quote]

[Tessa K]

This is complete rubbish. Non consensual slapping, choking, gagging or spitting are examples of Common Assault, a criminal offence. They don’t stop being examples of assault just because the perpetrator is having sex - quite the opposite. No one should do that, ever. That’s why it’s been a crime for centuries.

To compare an assault to other forms of discomfort (perhaps muscle cramps from over exertion) is staggeringly inept.

The survey on which this thread is predicated creates the ambiguity. The responses to questions 1,2, 4 and 5 are sought without reference to any definition of what they constitute, with the notable exception of question 3 (choking) which was closely defined, there are no means to identify what was in the minds of the responders when they replied, .

That's incorrect, see Bird on a Fire's post. In the survey the actions were defined (eg Gagging where your mouth or airway is blocked or partially blocked with a body part or item).

The survey does not even include specification of whether the individual acts were concented to, only that intercourse was consensual.

See also Bird on a Fire's post regarding unwanted acts.

Question 2. aggregates the activities for classification of wanted and unwanted (therefore strictly consensual/non consensual) but this allows no way to distinguish between the varied acts, and of course no way to know what the responders were in fact responding to.

See the other responses.

In the absence of far greater detail there is no way to tie any of the responses (except those for non consensual action of choking, but which the survey does not dis-aggregate) to legal definitions of assault, all could fall within the notion given in the sentencing guild line link of 'contact sport',

No, they couldn't fall under the exception of a contact sport. That applies to sports like football or rugby which have well defined rules. A person who plays football can be assumed to have consented to a certain amount of shoving etc, because they know in advance what is allowed.

that is in English law, these were minor discomforts that were part of the consented activity.

First, slapping, spitting, biting, hair pulling, gagging and choking are all covered by common assault. For example, see these notes by a solicitor:

no injury needs to have been sustained. Common examples are spitting, pushing or slapping.

Second, "were part of the consented activity" would only apply if the woman knew in advance that sex would usually involve spiting, gagging etc, and that the woman consented to them (with the two principles of consent being that it is positive and genuine).

[/quote]

Are we discussing male violence against women here and the failings of the survey in the other thread or the other way round? They are two separate issues.

[Woodchopper]

The survey on which this thread is predicated creates the ambiguity. The responses to questions 1,2, 4 and 5 are sought without reference to any definition of what they constitute, with the notable exception of question 3 (choking) which was closely defined, there are no means to identify what was in the minds of the responders when they replied, .

That's incorrect, see Bird on a Fire's post. In the survey the actions were defined (eg Gagging where your mouth or airway is blocked or partially blocked with a body part or item).

The survey does not even include specification of whether the individual acts were concented to, only that intercourse was consensual.

See also Bird on a Fire's post regarding unwanted acts.

Question 2. aggregates the activities for classification of wanted and unwanted (therefore strictly consensual/non consensual) but this allows no way to distinguish between the varied acts, and of course no way to know what the responders were in fact responding to.

See the other responses.

In the absence of far greater detail there is no way to tie any of the responses (except those for non consensual action of choking, but which the survey does not dis-aggregate) to legal definitions of assault, all could fall within the notion given in the sentencing guild line link of 'contact sport',

No, they couldn't fall under the exception of a contact sport. That applies to sports like football or rugby which have well defined rules. A person who plays football can be assumed to have consented to a certain amount of shoving etc, because they know in advance what is allowed.

that is in English law, these were minor discomforts that were part of the consented activity.

First, slapping, spitting, biting, hair pulling, gagging and choking are all covered by common assault. For example, see these notes by a solicitor:

no injury needs to have been sustained. Common examples are spitting, pushing or slapping.

Second, "were part of the consented activity" would only apply if the woman knew in advance that sex would usually involve spiting, gagging etc, and that the woman consented to them (with the two principles of consent being that it is positive and genuine).

Are we discussing male violence against women here and the failings of the survey in the other thread or the other way round? They are two separate issues.

I was writing that post when the split happened. So I hadn't thought about it.

[tom p]

In the absence of far greater detail there is no way to tie any of the responses (except those for non consensual action of choking, but which the survey does not dis-aggregate) to legal definitions of assault, all could fall within the notion given in the sentencing guild line link of 'contact sport',

No, they couldn't fall under the exception of a contact sport. That applies to sports like football or rugby which have well defined rules. A person who plays football can be assumed to have consented to a certain amount of shoving etc, because they know in advance what is allowed.

And if someone goes beyond the expected/allowed degree of contact, then not only is there a referee on-hand to administer in-game justice; but the victim can even have recourse to the law should the assault be too great.

[Gfamily]

I'm disappointed that the BBC report said that 38% of women in the survey have been subjected to unwanted acts, whereas it's 38% of 69% of women; as 31% of women have not said they've experienced them

Still appalling.

Not helped by poor reporting.